INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION

2016, VOL. 11, NO. 14, 6663-6674

OPEN ACCESS

Semantics vs Pragmatics of a Compound Word

Elena A. Smirnovaa, Ella I. Biktemirovab and Diana N. Davletbaevaa

aKazan (Volga region) Federal University, Kazan, RUSSIA; bKazan State University of
Architecture and Engineering, Kazan, RUSSIA

ABSTRACT
This paper is devoted to the study of correlation between semantic and pragmatic potential of a
compound word, which functions in informal speech, and the mechanisms of secondary
nomination, which realizes the potential of semantic-pragmatic features of colloquial compounds.
The relevance and the choice of the research question is based on the following: firstly, the last
decades in the study of the language are devoted to the analysis of language in action (speech)
rather than its inner form; secondly, the human factor is the leading notion in pragmalinguistics;
thirdly, pragmatics is closely connected with productive word building and nomination processes.
The following scientific methods were used in the research: analysis and synthesis, definition
analysis, method of transformations, the semantic analysis, statistical method, descriptive
analysis, and contextual method. The materials and methods chosen in the article help to prove
that the meaning of a compound word is built not only on the semantic purpose but mostly on the
pragmatic one, that is why the inner structure of a colloquial compound is more complicated. The
research also shows that the traditional understanding of pragmatics determines the study of
communicative features which appear in certain contexts. The obtained results can be applied in
the educational system and are of theoretical and practical value for educational professionals
who investigate the questions of pragmatics and semantics.

KEYWORDS ARTICLE HISTORY

Semantic component of meaning, pragmatic Received 20 June 2015
component of meaning, colloquial compounding, Revised 20 August 2016
informal speech Accepted 22 August 2016

Introduction
The interest of the linguists on semantics and linguistic pragmatics is
determined by moving forward the ideas of the priority of content and secondary
position of expression.
The existence of pragmatic meaning is admitted by many linguists; the
term pragmatic meaning is widely used. However, the status of the meaning,

CORRESPONDENCE Elena A. Smirnova s_elena_84@mail.ru

2016 Smirnov, Biktemirova and Davletbaeva. Open Access terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) apply. The license permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, on the condition that users give exact credit to the original author(s)
and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if they made any changes.
6664 E. A. SMIRNOVA, E. I. BIKTEMIROVA AND D. N. DAVLETBAEVA

its place and part in the content of the meaning structure of the word, content
filling of the pragmatic meaning (aspect) is explained differently and makes the
subject of great discussion. The dispute in the topic is focused on referring the
meaning to the area of semantics or pragmatics. The separation of semantics
and pragmatics often determined by the concept of the usage: pragmatics studies
the sign or symbol in its context, semantics deals with interpretation of the
meaning out of the context, in other words abstractly. According to N. Salmon
(2005), this is just an utterance which has no explanatory function that do not
allow to make a certain boundary between two notions, in case when the
meaning of the expressed idea is close to the means of expressing this idea. The
utterance is used in a certain context because of its meaning, and vice versa, it
gets its meaning through the use of the context. From this point of view, it is
clear that the meaning and the use represent direct product of each other.
G. N. Leech (1983) in his work Principles of Pragmatics defines pragmatics
as a study about situational meaning of the utterance. The question of the
meaning is central for pragmatics and rather disputable concerning its place in
reference to semantics or pragmatics. If semantics studies the meaning as a
necessary feature of the linguistic unit which exists in its reference to the
objects, pragmatics studies the language in speech, in the process of
communication, so the meaning corresponds with the participants of
communication.
Separating the terms G.N. Leech (1983) notes semantics has absolute
meaning which is expressed by morphosyntactical and phonological means;
pragmatic meaning does not always understandable through the meaning of its
parts, but if the aim of the utterance which needs situational context and
knowledge of the rules of language is used for understanding, it gets certain
intentions. The researcher pays attention to the correlation between
grammatical and pragmatic aspects of speech. The pragmatic explanation is less
accurate and certain. The pragmatic principles do not limit language bahaviour
like grammar rules do. This is connected with functioning of the language as a
communicative system (Leech, 1983; Posner, 1992).
It is obvious that semantics studies the unity of form and content;
pragmatics focuses in cooperation between the speaker, form and meaning. It is
also important to take into account one more participant of the communication
process the listener or reader (Yule, 2000).
Some other linguists interpret semantics as something that the speaker
says or claims in his utterance; pragmatics as something which is meant by
the speaker or something interpreted by the listener (Salmon, 2005). However,
such approach does not define the notion semantics which complicates the
adequate perception of the differences between semantic and pragmatic content
of the uttered idea.
The linguistic literature does not have commonly used term for defining the
layer of the meaning which contains the information about the relation of the
person who uses the word to the object. This is also no common opinion about
the notions which refer to this layer and how to describe them. Such lexical
information could be pragmatic, connotative, expressive, stylistic.
Such chaos in terminology and viewpoint to the problem is connected with
the idea that such aspect of the meaning of the word is recently studied, because
of the change from analyzing the language as a system of sign to the analysis of
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION 6665

the system in communication. This information is not homogeneous in its

structure and represented by three kinds: the relation of the speaker to
signified, the relation of the speaker to addressee, the information of pragmatic
functions of the word.
Characterizing the types (layers) of the meaning by the character of
information which they contain, I. Kobozeva (2004) refers denotative and
significative meanings to semantics, pragmatic meaning to pragmatics. So,
denotative layer gives the information about extra-linguistic reality.
Significative meaning gives the information about the way the object or
situation reflect the speakers consciousness, focusing on the features that make
it possible to unite subjects and situations in one class and opposed to other
classes. Pragmatic layer gives the information about the conditions of the usage
of the word, different aspects of communicative situation where it is used
(Kobozeva, 2004).
If we study lexical-semantic information which the word contains, all the
levels will present the components of the unity, in other words lexical-semantic
information. However, if the first two components (denotative and significative)
are defined clearly, the pragmatic component and the information it contains
has different interpretation.
All the mentioned above defined a choice of semantic and pragmatic
components in the inner structure of a compound word to an article as a subject
of the research. The object of the analysis includes the bulk of colloquial
compounds which are peculiar for the structure of the English language in
general and its informal variant as well. Thus, the aim of the research is to
identify structural and semantic features which determine the realization of
pragmatic potential of compounds used in informal speech and study the
mechanisms influencing the appearance of secondary colloquial words.
Methodological Framework
The material under analysis includes 750 colloquial compounds, some of
which have an occasional origin and are not fixed in the modern dictionaries.
The following scientific methods were used in the research: analysis and
synthesis, definition analysis, method of transformations, the semantic analysis,
statistical method, descriptive analysis, and contextual method.
Results and Discussion
This research is based on the component structure of the word. Taking into
account the fact that any word includes two components, it also has a pragmatic
one which provides additional information. Consequently, it is reasonable to
study the impact of this component on colloquial compound words, because the
significance of this component is higher in colloquial vocabulary rather than in
neutral one.
On the Study of Secondary Nomination in Colloquial Compounds
Colloquial meaning is characterized by the process of secondary naming, in
which some features of the original meaning are used in production of a new
colloquial stylistic significance (Brown, 1996).
The appearance of secondary nominations in the language is one of the laws
of its development. It is due to the fact that primary nomination is rare in
6666 E. A. SMIRNOVA, E. I. BIKTEMIROVA AND D. N. DAVLETBAEVA

modern languages. According to N.O. Martynova (2007), the nominator uses the
units which already exist (and the ways of their combination) in relation to new
nominations.
Some linguists define the primary nomination as original linguistic naming,
primary word (Morrish, 1999; Fisher, 1998). In this case the primary nomination
is considered to be rare. In order to note the ability of modern languages to
enlarge their nominal tool-kit, the idea of secondary nomination was
introduced. This notion includes the use of phonetic image of the original
linguistic unit for a new signified, in other words the appearance of a new
meaning of this linguistic unit.
Meanwhile, the results of the secondary nomination are perceived as
derived on the basis of morphological structure and meaning. The ways of
secondary nomination, in this case, differ depending on linguistic means used to
create new names and on the type of the relation name-reality. The results of
secondary naming are differentiated on the types of means:
1) word-building as a regular way of creating new words and meanings;
2) syntactical transposition where morphological means indicate the
change of syntactical structure, saving lexical meaning at the same time;
3) semantic transposition do not change the material image of the unit and
create polysemantic words as well as phraseological units of different types
(Vardzelashvili, 2000).
Secondary nomination is used in all levels of the language; however, lexical-
semantic system is mostly influenced by it. This regularity is explained by 1) the
limited range of lexemes of any language and the necessity of using these lexical
resources for naming new notions (Kolshansky, 1991); 2) limited range of means
of linguistic expression and the necessity to express the unlimited conceptual
content (Boldyrev & Babina, 2001).
However, taking into account pragmatic point of view, we do not fully
support such approach to limits in the language. On the contrary, we connect
the appearance of secondary nomination with the principle of economy which
directs the nomination process to secondary nomination, in other words leads to
rethinking of existing nomination means in the language (Molchkova, 2003).
The problem of choosing the word as a process we connect with different
operations: firstly, on the level of inner preparation the speaker, supported by
the knowledge of native language as a system, analyses the differential-
semantic features and their potential pragmatic opportunities; secondly, the
choice of secondary nomination is determined by the inner lexicon of the
speaker, their individual world view, because to think means introducing new
words; thirdly, the inner preparation is not separated from external, terminative
level, so that it aims at activity which allows to achieve the desirable effect.
All in all, secondary lexical nomination represents the result of natural
development of the language, determined by cognitive, communicative activity of
human in the process of social-historical practice. The appearance of new social
relations leads to transformation of information concentrated in word sign.
Consequently, secondary lexical nomination can reflect ideology of a certain
epoch, orientation and principle of cooperation of these ideas.
Mechanisms of Creating Secondary Nomination
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION 6667

The research is focused on the mechanisms which initiate the appearance of

secondary colloquial compound words in informal speech.
The main principle of secondary naming is the use of existing linguistic
signs for new signified and the concepts they reflect. As a rule, there are two
kinds of secondary nomination systematic-linguistic and speech. In the first
case secondary nomination is considered to be fixed dictionaries as commonly-
used in communication. In the second case secondary nomination is the
consequence of occasional and individual use of existing linguistic sign for
strengthening of expressiveness of the speech in a certain context (Shelyakin,
2005). Consequently, on the one hand, secondary nomination enriches the
language with new signified meanings; on the other hand, secondary nomination
complicates semantically and expressively speech utterances, creating their
semantic figurativeness, which includes simultaneous correlation of language
sign with two different denotations to the signified.
Most colloquial compounds go under figurative transfer of meaning which
helps to create secondary nominations (Smirnova, Sadykova & Davletbaeva,
2014). The transferred compounds are characterized by complicated meaning
structure and contain additional connotations, used for expressing a certain
relation to naming the objects (Lehrer, 2007).
The transferred meaning can be different on its depth as well as its
background. The semantic processes which appear between the components of
the compound can realize in accordance with the existing relations between the
components: equivalence, exception, contradictory, subordination, overlapping
(Sadykova, 2002; Sadykova & Kayumova, 2014).
Based on the above, we note a great role of the mechanisms of metaphor
and metonymy processes in creating secondary nominative meanings of noun-
compounds in informal speech. These two processes are studied below.
Metaphorisation
Metaphorisation is one of the most productive mechanisms of creating new
lexical units which are marked as colloquial. The metaphorical transference of
meaning is based on comparison. Realizing denotative functions, metaphor
creates new opportunities for using old words, fills them with new meanings and
expands notional volume of the word. As a result of secondary nomination,
metaphor has associative nature and is irreplaceable means of linguistic
expressiveness.
Since the appearance of the work Metaphors We Live By (Lacoff & Johnson
1980), the number of researchers who are interested in figurative language is
increasing. G. Lacoff and M. Johnson his followers state that metaphors do not
manage the language; the language itself is metaphorical in its nature.
Considering life experience our thoughts are structured by conceptual metaphor
which helps to understand one notion with the help of the other, e.g. more
abstract by exact and familiar. So, metaphorical expression is the linguistic
reflection of conceptual metaphor, existing in our consciousness.
Metaphorical consciousness is an important part of metalinguistic
consciousness which gives the information about metaphorical schemes. These
schemes are based on the consciousness of people who speak the language and
influence the use of the language.
6668 E. A. SMIRNOVA, E. I. BIKTEMIROVA AND D. N. DAVLETBAEVA

Colloquial metaphor has the same mechanism of creation as the metaphor

of other style of speech, however, it does not exclude the existence of a certain
specific character of compounds with transferred meaning in informal speech.
Metaphor in colloquial word building is the main word building means.
Colloquial metaphor contributes to the creation of figurativeness through
juxtaposition of distant conceptual notions (Petru, 1993). Consequently,
juxtaposed objects should be distant enough to create the effect of
unexpectedness which will attract attention; the different features should
emphasize similarity. Juxtaposition of two or more notions which do not meet in
usual situation leads to the creation of absolutely unexpected figurative meaning
(Benczes, 2006).
Example 1:
grease-monkey motor mechanic. The image of a person who is compared
with a monkey dirty with grease.
In neutral metaphorical nominations the accuracy is significant, but in
colloquial metaphor the denotative feature is intentionally distorted to create
adequate stylistic effect.
Example 2:
armpit colloquial the most miserable and undesirable place in a particular
area; the main meaning the hollow under the junction of the arm and
shoulder.
In colloquial variant the features of distance, small size are specified. The
distortion of this meaning introduces negative connotation, exaggerating real
denotative features. As a result, the strongest negative emotional potential is
created so that the use of it is possible only in informal situation (Meyer, 1993).
In fact, this potential is not realized and a certain range of negative semes is
fixed as functional connotations of the sign.
Colloquial metaphor demonstrates anthropocentrism in choosing the object
of nomination. The main object of nomination is human in all his
manifestations. It should be mentioned that topical classification of these
compounds is rather difficult, so the choice of nominees is realized from different
parts of life.
Example 3:
bahama-mama (liter. Bahamas + mother, woman) an enormous woman;
Example 4:
apple-polisher (liter. apple (fruit) + a person who makes something shine)
a person who seeks of favour through flattery;
Example 5:
beefcake (liter. meat of cow + dessert) a man of athletic built;
Example 6:
cheesecake (liter. cheese + dessert) naked beauty (from magazine).
Anthropological nominations have negative assessment of metaphorical
units. Denoting external and essential features of persons character and
activities, metaphorical transformations point at negative features that reflect
the connotative aspect of meanings.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION 6669

This mechanism is often used to make the speech more expressive and
figurative. Such colloquialisms usually have synonyms in neutral speech:
Example 7 is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Metaphorical transformation of meaning

Colloquial compounds with metaphorical Neutral meaning
transformation of meaning
god-box organ
swallowtails dresscoat, evening-dress
shutterbug camera
sausage-dog dachshund
salad-days youth
potato-box mouth
motion-lotion fuel

Metaphor is used not only for expressiveness. Is some cases metaphor is the
best solution on order to provide accuracy, laconism and understanding.
Metaphors in compounds is efficient way to fill one word with a great range if
information.
Example 8:
night-cap a glass of alcohol at night for good sleep.
These compounds are efficient situational nominations, thanks to their
laconism and content-richness.
To sum up, metaphorisation makes a great impact on enlarging colloquial
lexical fund in general. Metaphor in colloquial speech is brighter than in neutral
one: denotative feature is distorted with the aim to create a certain stylistic
effect. The process of metaphorisation is especially interesting on the material of
compounds, because complex structure helps to juxtapose distant notions to
reach greater figurativeness.
Metonomy
Metonymy is not based on associative mechanism. It realizes due to the
choice of a certain feature of the object which marks it. Such mechanism does
not allow opening the differences between stylistically expressive metonymy in
informal speech and its neutral variant.
However, colloquial compounding of metonymic nominations is rather
numerous and has potential to unlimited formation. The analysis of the material
showed that metonymy in colloquial speech has lower meaning.
Example 9:
billingsgate coarsely abusive language (based on the name of a big fish
market in London);
Example 10:
bluecoat policeman (based on part of clothing);
Example 11:
bluejacket sailor on military ship (based on part of clothing);
Example 12:
clothcap worker (cloth cap a symbol of working class).
6670 E. A. SMIRNOVA, E. I. BIKTEMIROVA AND D. N. DAVLETBAEVA

A great source for metonymic colloquial compounds is the use of

anthroponomy in their structure. The peculiar features are: complex structure,
less availability to predict the meaning, because such compounds are built on
cooperation of a lexical unit and a proper name, characterized by semantic
capacity; figurative meaning of the components, connotative meaning.
Example 13:
jack-a-dandy princock, elegant man;
Example 14:
tomfool dude, cheat.
In the examples above the semantic shift in dependent components can be
observed: a proper name loses its lexical determination and gets the meaning of
the gender differentiation. In some cases the generalized meaning and
vagueness of an anthropological component, they can be interchanged each other
with the same root morpheme: jackass, jennyass. The flexibility of components,
which occurs in informal speech, is shown in the difference of genders expressed
by the proper names and helps to create compounds of female and male gender.
However, there are some examples which can be referred to both women
and men. This created certain expressiveness in naming a man with the help of
womans name.
Example 15:
mollycoddle (Molly female name) 1. tenderfoot; 2. coll. girl boy.
Colloquial markedness of such compounds is provided not only with the
help of informal vocabulary. The colloquial meaning appears in the process of
compounding and the use of shortened proper names: Jenny Jennifer; Tom,
Tommy Thomas; Jim James, etc.
In total 82 colloquial compounds were analyzed. The bulk of these
compounds are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Bulk of colloquial compounds

# Name of a semantic Examples of compounds Number of
groups lexical units (%)
1. Names of animals and tomcat, jackdaw, 11%
birds jack-snipe, jackrabbit, jenny-ass,
magpie
2. Names of plants jack-in-the-pulpit, rosemary, 7,3%
jimsonweed, kiss-me-John-in-the-
garden-gate
3. Compounds focused tomboy, tomfool, jack-a-dandy, 26,8%
on humans character hillbilly, jack-of-all-trades, crackjack
4. Names of drugs jack-ups, marijane, ken-dolls, 4,9%
mariweegee
5. Names of food and Peter-see-me, Johnny-cake 3,7%
beverages
6. Names of tools tommy-bar, jack-knife, jack-plane 6,1%
7. Names of games jack-stones, jack-straw, blackjack 3,7%
8. Names of professions jack-tar, lumberjack, Johnny-be-good 3,7%
9. Names of military tommy-gun, chase-me-Charlie 2,4%
equipment
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION 6671

10. Original occasional Benifer, J-goddess, anti-Carrie 11%

compounds
11. Others Demijohn 19,5%

The most numerous group is represented by the compounds focused on

humans character. It is obvious that a proper name being the part of the
compound influences the meaning of the whole word.
The analysis of the frequency of use of proper names in colloquial
compounds is presented in Figure 1.

Jerry
Billy, Bill
Molly
Nick
Jim
Jenny, Jennifer
Mary, Maria
Johnny, John
Tom
Jack
0 10 20 30 40

Figure 1. Analysis of the frequency of use of proper names in colloquial compounds

This figure does not include such proper names as: Jerry, Carl, Peter, Anna,
Daisy, Mag, Nelly, Carrie. Each of these names was found only once. It is 1.2%
of the total number of compounds under analysis. The surnames were studied
separately. This group is 7.3% of the total number of compounds.
Conclusion
The meaning of the word plays important role both in semantics and
pragmatics, so the study of correlation of semantic and pragmatic components
within the word is quite significant. The pragmatic component carries certain
lexical and semantic information and also fills the semantics of the colloquial
word.
The component analysis of colloquial compounds points at the dependence
of the meaning of the word on the semantics of its components. The informal
speech contains compounds with apart-directed meaning.
The semantics of the colloquial compounds has a peculiarity of dividing the
words into colloquial words proper and compounds with colloquial meaning. In
the first case the focus is on structural motivation of the meaning which gets
stylistic markedness colloquial, in the second case the semantic motivation is
observed. The second group is characterized by the process of secondary
6672 E. A. SMIRNOVA, E. I. BIKTEMIROVA AND D. N. DAVLETBAEVA

nomination, the appearance of which can be explained by the economy of

linguistic means, phonetic form to name another object or event. The secondary
nomination is connected with pragmatic attitude of the speakers aiming at
efficient communication.
Two mechanisms of secondary nomination have been determined
metaphorisation and metonomisation.
Metaphorisation plays an important role in enlarging the bulk of colloquial
compounds. In informal speech metaphor is brighter than in neutral speech: the
denotative feature is changed on purpose to create a certain stylistic effect. The
complex structure of compounds makes it interesting to study the process of
metaphorisation through juxtaposition of different notions which creates the
effect of unexpectedness and expressiveness.
Nominations affected by metonymy are widely spread among colloquial
compounds as historically metonymy was used to form nicknames in informal
speech. Colloquial metonymy shows lower meaning which is achieved by
showing denotative feature with the help of signified which referred to
generalised notion.
The material under analysis revealed a big group of compounds with a
proper name as a component. These compounds have some features in common:
most of them belong to the semantic group focused on the humans character
(26.8%) and names of animals and birds (11%). The most productive proper
names are: Jack, Tom, John, Mary, Jenny.
The research proves the fact that semantic and pragmatic components are
equally represented in a colloquial compound word. On the one hand, it makes
the inner structure of a compound word more complicated, but, on the other
hand, this correlation reflects the main intention of the speaker to impress the
listener. The aim is not only in delivering information, but including subjective
opinion, personal emotions and life experience. As a result, the analysis of
mechanisms used to achieve the balance of semantics and pragmatics explains
the richness of colloquial vocabulary in general.
The research showed that:
1) the study of pragmatics is realized in two main directions the linguistic
meaning is studied and the boundaries between semantics and pragmatics are
defined;
2) traditional understanding of pragmatics determines the study of
communicative features which appear in certain contexts; colloquial meaning
are characterized by the process of secondary nomination, the appearance of
which corresponds to the principle of saving linguistic means, so the linguistic
sign and its phonetic image is used for naming another object or notion.
Secondary nomination is connected with realization of pragmatic intentions of
the speakers aimed at efficient communication.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL & SCIENCE EDUCATION 6673

Elena A. Smirnova is Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor, Leo Tolstoy

Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication, Department of Germanic
Philology, Kazan (Volga region) Federal University, Kazan, Russia.
Ella I. Biktemirova is Candidate of Education, Associate Professor, Institute of
Economics and Management in Construction, Department of Economics and Business in
Construction, Kazan State University of Architecture and Engineering, Kazan, Russia.
Diana N. Davletbaeva is Doctor of Philology, Associate Professor, Leo Tolstoy
Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication, Department of Germanic
Philology, Kazan (Volga region) Federal University, Kazan, Russia.
References
Benczes, R. (2006). Creative compounding in English: The semantics of metaphorical and
metonymical Noun-Noun Combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 206 p.
Boldyrev, N. & Babina, L. (2001). Vtorichnaya representaciya kak ocobii tip predstavlenia znanii v
yazyke. Filologicheskiye nauki, 4, 79-86.
Brown, G. (1996). Speakers, listeners and communication: explorations in dicourse analysis.
Cambridge: Camdridge University Press, 251 p.
Fisher, R. (1998). Lexical change in present-day English. A corpus-based study of the motivation,
institutionalization and productivity of creative neologism. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verl, 209 p.
Kobozeva, I. (2004). Lingvisticheskaya semantika. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 352 p.
Kolshansky, G. (1975). Sootnosheniye subektivnykh i obektivnykh faktorov v yazyke. Moscow:
Nauka, 232 p.
Lacoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 270
p.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman, 250 p.
Lehrer, A. (2007). Blendalicious. In J. Munet (Ed.), Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 133 p.
Martynova, N. O. (2007). O tipakh nominacii inokultunykh realii v mezhkulturnoi kommunikacii.
Direct access: http://cs.net.ru/conf/ruslang2005/trend7/martynova.htm
Meyer, R. (1993). Compound Comprehension in Isolation and in Context. The contribution of
Conceptual and Discourse Knowledge to the Comprehension of Novel Noun-Noun Compounds.
Tbingen: Niemeyer, 225 p.
Molchkova, L. (2003). Professionalnaya leksika angloyazychnykh sredstv massovoi informacii:
pragmatika, semantika, struktura: PhD thesis abstract. Samara: Samara State University of
Social Sciences and Education, 24 p.
Morrish, J. (1999). Frantic Semantics. Snapshots of Our Changing Language. London: Macmillan,
179 p.
Petru, E. (1993). Socio-pragmaticheskiye i strukturno-semanticheskiye osobennosti ekspressivnoi
kollokvialnoi leksiki: PhD thesis. Pyatigorsk: Pyatigorsk State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign
Languages, 235 p.
Posner, R. (1992). Reseach in Pragmatics after Morris. In M. Balat & J. Deledalle-Rhodes (Eds.).
Lhomme et ses signes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1420 p.
Sadykova, A. & Kayumova, D. (2014). The correlation between linguistic and conceptual worldviews:
the role of metaphor. Life Scince Journal, 11(6), 552-555.
Sadykova, A. (2002). Sistema substantivnogo slovoslozheniya v tyurkskykh i germanskykh yazykakh v
sravnitelno-tipologicheskom aspekte: PhD thesis. Kazan: Kazan State Pedagogical University,
492 p.
Salmon, N. (2005). Two conceptions of semantics. In Z. Szabo (Ed.), Semantics Versus Pragmatics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 328 p.
Shelyakin, M. (2005). Yazyk i chelovek: K problem motivirovannocti yazykovoi sistemy. Moscow:
Flinta, 296 p.
Smirnova, E., Sadykova, A. & Davletbaeva, D. (2014). The study of occasional words: Theoretical
aspect. Life Science Journal, 11(11), 532-535.
6674 E. A. SMIRNOVA, E. I. BIKTEMIROVA AND D. N. DAVLETBAEVA

Vardzelashvili, Zh. (2000). K voprosu o tolkovanii termina nominaciya v lingvisticheskikh

issledovaniyakh. Slavistics in Georgia, 1, 62-68.
Yule, G. (2000). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 135 p.